ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICEBRAMPTON SMALL CLAIMS COURT

Dismissed

Goldi Productions Ltd., John Goldi and Joan Goldi

V
Postmedia

A 2014 Small Claims Court Claim of $25.K

Status: A Statement of Claim filed on May 29 2014 in Brampton small claims court was Dismissed at a pre-trial Conference on January 2015. According to the Endorsement of Jan 16 2015 there was some consideration given to adding this lawsuit to the Goldi et al v Bell Media Inc. action.

Status: A Statement of Claim was filed May 29 2014 in Brampton small claims court and a Statement of Defence was later filed for CTV; a Division of Bell Media Inc. The Goldi Claim was Dismissed on motion with Reasons on August 3rd 2016. Costs of $3.85K plus $475 in disbursements were awarded to CTVGlobemedia.

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

(Small Claims Court – Brampton)

Active Claim

Goldi Productions Ltd.

v

Ritchie Sinclair

A $25.000 Claim for defamation and injurious falsehood

Status: According to a Feb. 8 2012 Endorsement the Claims of John Goldi and Joan Goldi were withdrawn. The Claim of Goldi
Productions Ltd. remains. On Nov 16 2012 the Plaintiff moved to adjourn Trial scheduled for Nov. 19 2012 in Brampton, Ontario. The Court granted adjournment to a date to be fixed after a further Settlement Conference to be scheduled between Jan 1 2013 and June 30 2013. This claim came to trial in 2015 and has been adjourned sine die.

(Allegations contained in these documents have not been proven in court)

Status: A Jan 13 2011 Court Endorsement provided an opportunity for the plaintiff to add material from this action to his Superior court action against Sinclair, on or before June 1 2011. He did not act. This action presumed dismissed as re-litigation of the Superior Court action against Sinclair was reactivated in Oct 2012 after White filed new materials which triggered a second settlement conference on Nov 7 2012. An Amended Defence was filed on October 3 2014. In 2015 the matter came to trial and the Plaintiff received a $25K Judgment in his favour. No witnesses testified for either side other than the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff was represented by Brian Shiller. The defendant was self represented.

Status: On 22 April, 2010, Mr. Otavnik agreed that he had no valid claim against KRG and agreed to dismiss his lawsuit against KRG without any payment of any kind by KRG and that, as part of the settlement, Mr. Otavnik signed a release confirming that KRG’s settlement was not any sort of admission of liability. (Excerpt from a statement by the Kinsman Robinson Galleries)

17 September 2004 “I enclose a copy of an Affidavit…as sworn by Mr. Morrisseau…describing numerous fakes and imitations as listed in a catalogue put out by the Maslak-McLeod Gallery. If any of those pieces are for sale by your gallery this weekend, please realize that you are selling fakes. Please also realize that Mr. Morrisseau does not have any Representation Agreement with Maslak-McLeod…and does not recognize Maslak-McLeod as being able to authenticate any of Mr. Morrisseau’s works”.

25 February 2005 “various artworks that you are offering for sale attributed to our client are in fact fakes. We and our client are prepared to meet with you and review and advise you of which works…are misattributed to our client”, “our client advises us the works in your possession advertised on your website as by Morrisseau are not by his hand”.

Related Media

Ritchie Sinclair appearing on Canada AM to speak about Morrisseau issues in 2014

(Article Excerpt) – The appeal also alleges the small-claims court judge erred by “unreasonably and incorrectly relying in the decision upon misapprehended facts, statements of fact that do not form a part of the evidence, unsupported non-expert hearsay evidence, and documents w hich w ere never disclosed or made evidence …” The appeal lists several examples, including the judge’s statement that Morrisseau had “Alzheimer’s disease.”

(Article Excerpt) – “My opinion, and that of my client, based upon what I have seen, is that there is a huge problem with the existence of fakes, and people should be particularly cautious when purchasing the work of Norval Morrisseau, and examine each painting on a case-by-case basis, and not rely unduly on a single statement about a single painting made by a single small-claims courts judge.” … Sommer says that in his opinion, the judgment contains errors of fact and law. For example, the judge noted that Morrisseau suffered from Alzheimer’s, he said….Morrisseau in his later years suffered from Parkinson’s disease. The distinction may be important, because Morrisseau’s mental state around the time Hatfield bought her painting was a key issue in the trial….The judge also ruled, in an apparent error, that “the court finds as a fact that the painted black dry brush signature on the back of the painting Wheel of Life is that of Wilfred Morrisseau.”

(Article Excerpt) – Don Robinson, a Toronto art gallery owner who was Morrisseau’s principal agent for 19 years, testified that the artist never signed the back of his paintings in black paint. All of the paintings sold at the auctions were fake, Robinson testified. He also suggested that Morrisseau’s own estranged family was involved in the production of fraudulent paintings. …It’s the first court ruling on the authenticity of a painting by Morrisseau, as far as he is aware, says Brian Shiller, the lawyer for Artworld of Sherway, the defendant in the case. “Hopefully now is a great time for Canadians to discover, or rediscover, Morrisseau,” he said. “Because there are a number of (similar) paintings out there, and they can probably be bought for very good value.” …. That should make it easier for galleries across Canada to sell similar paintings that came from the southern Ontario auctions, confident they are genuine Morrisseaus, said Shiller.

(Article Excerpt) – Canadian art scene observers who have been trying to prove that the market for Norval Morrisseau paintings has been awash in fakes and forgeries for years have been dealt a major setback in a decision from the Ontario Small Claims Court. Deputy Judge Paul Martial of Toronto ruled on Tuesday that a Morrisseau canvas titled Wheel of Life that a Sarnia schoolteacher bought in 2005 and came to believe was bogus is “on the balance of probabilities … an original Norval Morrisseau”…. Disputes over the authenticity of Morrisseau paintings have been fought by collectors, auctioneers, dealers and scholars, as well as representatives and relatives of the artist – and even Mr. Morrisseau himself.

(Article Excerpt) – One believes that the Morrisseau market, particularly since the mid-1990s, has been severely compromised by hundreds, even thousands of fakes – “the greatest fraud in Canadian art history,” to quote the Feb. 23 court testimony of Donald Robinson whose Toronto gallery, Kinsman Robinson, served as Morrisseau’s primary dealer from 1989 through 2007.

A June 10 2009 Defendant’s Claim for $25 000 for defamation, harassment and vexatious litigation.

Status: Ritchie Sinclair filed a Defendant’s Claim for harassment against Joe Otavnik in the Otavnik v Sinclair action on June 10 2009. Sinclair’s Claim was dismissed at trial however the Honourable Judge Godfrey’s Reasons produced several findings including the following extracted from his January 11 2011 Judgment:

♦

The harassment claim relates to a history of litigation involving Mr. Sinclair and others as defendants. Mr. Otavnik is a party plaintiff to some but not all of these actions. All these actions relate to one fundamental common issue, being the allegations of fake Morrisseau paintings. ………………. Mr. Sinclair also alleged that Mr. Otavnik has deleted many references on the Wikipedia website relating to Norval Morrisseau and defamed Mr. Sinclair under the screen names of “123 The Habs” and “123 Maddie”. Mr. Otavnik denies using these screen names, although Mr. Sinclair established by Exhibit Eight that Mr. Otavnik has used the screen name “Maddie 123CA”. ………….. As such, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Otavnik is one and the same as “The Habs One”. I also find it is more than a coincidence that Mr. Otavnik also has the screen name of “Maddie 123CA” with AOL and that the screen names used on the Wikipedia alterations and comments are “123 Maddie” and “123 Habs”. I find that all those screen names are probably Mr. Otavnik.

On April 6 2010 Joe Otavnik was arrested and charged by the Toronto Police Service (53 Division) for the alleged assault and criminal harassment of Ritchie Sinclair. The Otavnik Criminal Court matter came to trial on Feb 24 2012 and was adjourned to March 2013. The Crown failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and Mr. Otavnik was found Not Guilty on May 17 2013. Mr. Otavnik sued the Toronto Police Services Board and four officers in Oshawa Small Claims Court in 2010 for charging him. His action was dismissed with court costs against him in December 2013, which reportedly remain unpaid.

A June 8 2009 Claim for $10 000 for slander of title, defamation and injurious falsehood.

Status: On 8 April 2010, the morning before the trial, for $2, Otavnik settled his Claim against Mr. Cole’s co-defendants who were Ritchie Sinclair’s lawyer (in McLeod et al v Sinclair) and his lawyer’s wife The Otavnik Claim against Cole was dismissed at trial with court costs awarded to Mr. Cole. These costs have never been paid according to an affidavit filed by Mr. Cole in a Contempt motion brought against Mr. Otavnik in the Superior Court action Hearn v McLeod.

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

A 22 December 2008 Claim for $10 000 for damage to property and negligence.

Status: Kinsman Robinson Galleries (KRG) filed a Defendant’s Claim against Sinclair to protect them from liability in the event of an Otavnik win. On 27 April 2009 Kinsman Robinson Galleries agreed to remove all references to Sinclair from its website and in doing so settled with Otavnik. Sinclair consented to KRG removing themselves as defendants. On January 11, 2011 Otavnik’s claim against Sinclair was dismissed at trial by the Honourable M. Donald Godfrey, Provincial Judge of the Toronto Region.

♦

The plaintiff has failed to satisfy me on items b), c) and d). Firstly, the plaintiff has failed to satisfy me on a balance of probabilities that the statements of Mr. Sinclair are false. I am not prepared to accept the evidence of Mr. McLeod for the plaintiff over that of Mr. Robinson for the defendant as to the authenticity of the painting. Both witnesses are reputed art dealers who gave their respective opinions, but the plaintiff’s evidence did not sufficiently tip the scales in the plaintiff’s favour.

Secondly, I am not satisfied that the defendant acted with malice. The defendant appears to have worked with Norval Morrisseau for many years. His statements regarding the plaintiff’s painting, in my opinion, have been made without malice and for the purpose of reiterating previously made statements in newspaper articles and through statements made by or attributed to Morrisseau, himself. Finally, the plaintiff has failed to prove he suffered special damages.

Status: A 2006 email sent to Heffels disavowed paternity to purported Morrisseau art being offered for auction. This resulted in Mr. Otavnik suiing Norval Morrisseau along with his business manager, Gabor Vadas, for tainting the valuation of his paintings in having them removed from auction. In October 2007 Morrisseau and Vadas journeyed to Toronto to testify in this action and to meet with the R.C.M.P. who were launching an investigation into an alleged fraud being perpetrated on Morrisseau’s name and art. On December 4 2007 Norval Morrisseau passed away from complications related to Parkinson’s disease. On June 9 2008 Mr. Vadas, representing the Morrisseau Estate and himself, settled with Mr. Otavnik for $10 000 plus court costs in a publicly disclosed settlement.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Use of legal materials published by norvalmorrisseaulegal.com (NML) can be subject to additional conditions set by courts and government bodies claiming intellectual property rights relating to the documents. NML makes an effort to indicate the existence of additional conditions on the pages of the relevant databases but Users remain responsible for checking whether the intended use of the documents is authorized. All original material is copyright Ritchie Sinclair